Standing Committee F

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Schedule 1 - Exempt Hunting

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 73, in schedule 1, page 22, line 1, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3.—[Mr. Gray.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I do not want to bore the Committee, but is it not deeply regrettable that we are back in Room 11? I am told that 10 or a dozen members of the public are stuck outside. They have come to hear our debates on this important matter, but they are unable to come in and hear what we are talking about.

George Stevenson: I share that concern, as does every hon. Member. I apologise to members of the public for their discomfort and the fact that they cannot get into the Room. I am advised that after today we shall return to Committee Room 14 and stay there. I shall be looking for volunteers to man the barricades when we are in there. Again, I offer my profound and profuse apologies.

Alun Michael: I endorse the concern that you and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) have expressed, Mr. Stevenson. I am pleased to hear your assurance about our remaining sittings.
 When moving the amendment, the hon. Gentleman gave a somewhat convoluted explanation and I had the impression that he wished that he had not tabled it because he had had second thoughts. He told the Committee that he does not want to be consistent in his approach. He quoted Professor Harris with approval, suggesting that there should be a uniform approach in all circumstances but said that he would not be so consistent as to press the amendment to a vote. 
 The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) then rode to the hon. Gentleman's rescue, but missed his point. The point is not of prejudice for or against a particular species; it is a question of the evidence in specific circumstances or in relation to a particular species. He rushes to use the ''m'' word on every occasion. 
 The amendment would remove the exemptions provided in the Bill for the hunting of rats and rabbits, although I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman does not want to take them out of the Bill. He asked why an exemption should be made for rats. Rats are a health hazard and a pest and dogs are an effective means of keeping numbers down. The 
 Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 places an obligation on local authorities and occupiers of land to take steps to ensure that, as far as practicable, land is kept free of rats. On the basis of evidence from the methods available it seems clear that the use of dogs to control rat populations will always satisfy the utility and cruelty tests and for that reason the Bill includes ratting as a class of exempt hunting provided, of course, that the prior permission of the occupier of the land is obtained. 
 That is my conclusion and I hope that the Committee, in the light of the evidence, will agree with it.

John Gummer: Could I take the Minister back to his earlier comments that the Bill was constructed in such a way that it would take into account future as well as past activities? Both he and I may be on the same side as far as rats are concerned, but if, as is possible, someone found a better way of dealing with rats, the Bill would not be open to that, which seems to be inconsistent with his earlier view that it should be. We were discussing the problem of stoats and weasels when he said that.

Alun Michael: A change of that sort is very much to be desired. A more humane method invented to deal with a particular pest might well mean that a change should be made in the Bill. It would not change the structure of the Bill. If one found a way of dealing with rats that did not involve using dogs, a change could be made. I do not see that that is likely or possible, given the current methods available.
 The Bill would take account of future activity. In the 1960s, no one would have referred to the hunting of mink. The species is not native to this country and was not hunted at that time. Under previously proposed legislation, if a new pest species emerged, new legislation would have to be drafted. Someone jokingly referred to wallabies this morning. If they became a pest in the British countryside that needed to be eradicated and dogs were to be used to deal with them, there would be no need for a change in the structure of the Bill. The problem could be taken care of under the system of the registrar and the tribunal. That was what I meant when I said that future developments would be taken care of. 
 The Bill says that hunting is exempt if it is within a class specified in schedule 1. It goes on to say that the Secretary of State may amend schedule 1 by order so as to vary a class of exempt hunting. The variation would be possible in the Bill should things change. My point stands.

John Gummer: Surely that point should be the other way round. If there is no question of people hunting stoats and weasels at the moment, but everyone accepts the need to keep them under control—their status is exactly the same as rats—why is the Minister not prepared to put stoats and weasels into the same category as rabbits and rats? If people started hunting them in an unsatisfactory way, it could be changed under the order-making procedure.

Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman is speculating. I came to the conclusion that a great deal of activity takes place in relation to two species—
 ratting and rabbiting—where the case for exemption seems clear-cut and straightforward. In relation to other activities, that is not the case. At the end of the day, I have considered the evidence on which I based my conclusions and that evidence is readily available.

James Gray: The Minister says that the evidence is available. Will he give us a flavour of that evidence?

Alun Michael: I did a few moments ago. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not following what I was saying. Evidence presented at the public hearings explored the suffering caused during the chase and the subsequent kill when hunting different species with dogs. I have dealt with the nuisance aspect and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal made it clear that he is not disputing that. For rats and rabbits, the evidence was that the chase was typically extremely short—a matter of seconds—and that dogs were sufficiently larger than the quarry to ensure a relatively quick and humane kill. For rabbits, a rapid death caused by a dog involves less suffering than alternative methods of control such as gassing. I have referred to the alternatives of trapping and gassing rats on a number of occasions.

John Gummer: That statement applies precisely to the moment, to the sentence, to the word, to stoats and weasels—and mink, but I shall stick to stoats and weasels, or I may be in trouble. If that is the argument, it applies to stoats and weasels. If it does not apply to stoats and weasels, it does not apply to rabbits.

Alun Michael: I do not accept that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to lead me into trouble with you, Mr. Stevenson, but we discussed mink this morning. With any species, one applies the test of the extent to which it is a pest in the terms defined in clause 8(1). If the test is satisfied, the species is eligible to go into the exempt category. On the evidence of the alternative methods available and the extent to which hunting with dogs satisfies the criterion of being the least cruel method of dealing with it, I have proposed the two exemptions in the Bill.
 The Bill exempts the hunting of rabbits with dogs from the requirement for registration because an examination of the evidence led me to the view that that method of controlling rabbit populations would satisfy the utility and cruelty tests and that it causes less suffering than alternative methods of control. The amendments would require all hunting of rats and rabbits to be subject to registration. That would impose an unnecessary burden on farmers and gamekeepers as well as on the registrar and the tribunal, so I strongly oppose the amendments.

James Gray: The Minister has not attempted to answer the debate on this point. He said a moment ago that the evidence is clear for all to see and we can look at it if we want to. When I asked him what it was, he would not even answer the question. Apparently he does not know what the evidence was.
 The Minister says that he applied the tests of cruelty and utility to ratting and rabbiting and it became obvious to him that they must be allowed. Equally, he says that there is incontrovertible evidence that stag 
 hunting and deer coursing should be banned. However, he consistently refuses to tell us how he came to that conclusion. There is no evidence that ratting and rabbiting have more utility or less cruelty than, for example, hunting stoats and weasels with dogs, as my right hon. Friend keeps reminding us. Equally, there is no evidence that ratting and rabbiting have greater cruelty and less utility than fox hunting. The Minister gave one small example. His justification for ratting was that it is easy to see that the dogs are so much larger than their quarry. That applies to foxhunting. Foxhounds are considerably larger than the fox, especially if 20 or 30 couple are involved in the hunt. The same applies to weasels, stoats and the rest of them. There is no justification for singling out rats and rabbits. 
 The Minister also said that rats are a health risk. That also applies to foxes. There is a real risk, certainly to animal health and even, in extreme cases, to human health, from the large number of foxes around. If they are a hazard to health, surely we should allow dogs to chase and kill them.

John Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that the Minister also said that one should not apply the exemption to rabbits because it would cause a great deal of bureaucracy and paperwork. Yet, evidently we are to apply it to stoats and weasels. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the point home.
 The Minister has said that a gamekeeper who wants to use more than two dogs on stoats and weasels will have to ask for a licence. That is so preposterous and so ludicrous that he undermines any sense that the Bill may contain.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. We have argued all along that an enormous amount of bureaucracy and delay will be involved if too many applications go to the registrar. We were arguing that on Tuesday with regard to dogs at field trials, which will apparently now have to be registered. Every time a gamekeeper uses his dogs for any purpose, he will have to make two or three separate applications for the different quarry species that he wants to catch. The registrar will be buried under applications and bureaucracy. Now, the Minister is admitting that and justifying the exemption of rats and rabbits for that reason. He has also said that if he did not exempt them, an unduly harsh burden would be placed on gamekeepers and farmers. That is precisely what we have been arguing for foxes, mink, stoats and weasels. If the Minister passes these measures he will place an unreasonable burden not only on the registrar and tribunal system, but on gamekeepers and farmers.
 None of the arguments that the Minister has advanced has taken us one inch closer to understanding why he has singled out rats and rabbits. We can conclude only that he has done so for political reasons, because of human behaviour and because of the people who he believes take part in ratting and rabbiting compared to those who take part in foxhunting or deer hunting. In the brief remarks that he has just made, he gave us no clue on what special evidence had led to that conclusion. He sat in 
 his eyrie round the corner in DEFRA and concluded, for his own good reasons, that rats and rabbits should be exempt. He refuses, time after time, to tell us, the public or anybody why he came to that conclusion. When I asked a moment ago, he said that there was evidence, which was easily available. When I asked what that was, he said that I had not been listening, so he would not tell me. 
 There is no evidence. If there is, I again challenge the Minister to produce it. If there is any shred of evidence that explains for why rats and rabbits should be singled out, whether written or scientific or whatever, I challenge him to tell us what it is. If he cannot do that, I put it to him that the reason for this decision is nothing to do with evidence, but purely the human behaviour that he believes lies behind ratting and rabbiting and behind deer hunting. We shall come in a moment to what the Minister has called the incontrovertible evidence that has caused him to mess up the part of the Bill on deer hunting. I shall challenge him to lay out in very precise, detailed terms what that evidence is. He says that he has evidence for wrecking part of the Bill to exempt these two categories, and we want to know what it is. 
 The Minister has made a concession to ratting and rabbiting. We do not want to mess that up. That would be quite wrong, because there are farmers who will welcome it. Incidentally, as a Minister of the Crown, perhaps he will address himself to the issues rather than making cheap jibes. We tabled this probing amendment to try to investigate the Bill's bizarre structure, but we are obviously not going to press it to a vote because we like the fact that the exemption has been made. That seems sensible and legitimate. [Interruption.] The Minister says, from a sedentary position, that we are being inconsistent, but we are not. We welcome the exemptions and will welcome any other exemptions that he cares to make. We tried this morning to persuade him to make an exemption for mink hunting, which he refused to do. We notice the fundamental illogicality in the Bill but, plainly, we are not going to seek to correct it. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.
 Amendment negatived.

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Before we come to the next group of amendments, can inquiries be made about facilities in Portcullis house for this Committee? This Room is the black hole of Calcutta. It is very hot, so either the heating should be turned off or the windows opened. As you mentioned at the outset of the sitting, this Room is too small. I know that you have set inquiries in train to see whether we can go anywhere else on this Corridor and that nowhere is available, but can exploration be made of Portcullis house? It is a very grand and expensive building, which should be properly used.

Candy Atherton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Earlier, you said that you had asked for the central heating to be turned off. As I am sitting next to it, I can inform you that it is still powering out.

George Stevenson: That is interesting, because I was advised that it had been turned off. I am sure that the Clerk will ensure that it is turned off. That would be extremely helpful. The point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about Portcullis house is being heard as we speak. We will move every muscle to try to get better accommodation.

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in
schedule 1, page 23, line 11, after 'be', insert 'orphaned'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 344, in 
schedule 1, page 23, line 11, leave out 'diseased or' and insert 'seriously'.
 Amendment No. 55, in 
schedule 1, page 23, line 13, after 'mammal's', insert 'starvation or'.
 Amendment No. 345, in 
schedule 1, page 23, line 13, leave out 'its disease' and insert 'the wild mammal'.
 Amendment No. 56, in 
schedule 1, page 23, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
 Amendment No. 346, in 
schedule 1, page 23, line 25, leave out 'its disease' and insert 'it'.

Gregory Barker: As was demonstrated at length this morning, there is an extraordinary lack of intellectual integrity shaping and informing the Bill. Although the Minister tells us that the principles of utility and cruelty are the acid test in the Bill, we know that whenever the issues of utility and cruelty are invoked, they logically lead to a conclusion that argues in favour of more permissive and liberal legislation. However, the Minister and his supporters recoil from that conclusion.
 Both sides of the Committee should be concerned with an issue that goes beyond cruelty and utility: namely, animal welfare. I hope that the welfare of animals is the common thread that unites us all—[Interruption.] I resist my colleagues' attempts to make me use the Minister's golden thread, because I am afraid that that rhetorical device has become somewhat tarnished. Animal welfare is what I am most concerned about. I first came to the House as a teenager to lobby for an animal welfare cause, long before I joined a political party, so I will not take lectures from Labour Members or listen to claims that I am not interested in animal welfare. I believe that every person who has a genuine interest in the countryside and country sports has a real and enduring interest in the welfare of all animals. 
 What we fear and what underlies the amendments are the extraordinary unintended consequences of the Bill. Those consequences will have an extremely negative effect on animal welfare, particularly on the welfare of the fox. It is extraordinary that, if the Bill is not amended, many foxes will suffer in a really grisly way. They will suffer as they would not have suffered before the Bill became law. 
 Amendment No. 54 would ensure that dogs could be used to dispatch orphaned cubs, under the provisions for exempt hunting. If foxhunting were 
 banned, there would be a dramatic increase in the number of nursing vixen being shot. That would be a fact of life. There is no closed season for shooting foxes, and shooting foxes will be the only real alternative to control the fox population. No thought has been given to the protection of the cubs of the vixen that will be shot.

Hugo Swire: Would my hon. Friend go so far as to say that unless the Government accept the amendment, which is driven by concern for animal welfare, their thinking will be exposed for what it is? It has nothing to do with animal welfare, and everything to do with the management of human behaviour.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Labour Members oppose the amendment, it will display for the whole world to see that they have a prejudice against a certain form of human activity. I want to make sure that the welfare of the fox is put in first place, and that the prejudices that are so readily displayed by those on the Government Benches are put firmly in second.
 The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 makes special provision for dealing with orphaned cubs and allows them to be despatched using dogs below ground.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman cites the Act from Scotland. Could he cite the definition of ''orphaned''? I have sympathy with what he says, but I am concerned about the meaning of it. Her Majesty the Queen is an orphan now that her mother has died, but I do not think that he means an orphaned mammal in that sense.

Gregory Barker: The definition of ''orphan'' is pretty obvious: it is a cub that has lost its nursing parent. A cub that is below ground is unable to feed itself. Any dependent offspring could become an orphan.

John Gummer: Her Majesty the Queen could not in any circumstances be referred to as a cub. A cub is not a fully grown animal. We are talking about cubs underground with nursing mothers.

Gregory Barker: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.

Rob Marris: I am trying to make some progress here. I do not see the word ''cub'' in the amendment. That is the sense of what the hon. Member is putting forward. I am taking up a technical point to ascertain whether the change that Amendment No. 54 would make is legally sufficient. He is importing the word ''cub'' into it, which I do not think a registrar or a tribunal could do. Perhaps ''nursing'' or ''being nursed'' would be appropriate. I am interested in the technicalities.

Gregory Barker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, we can return to this at the end of my comments.

James Gray: If there was a prosecution it would not be a possible defence for a person claiming to be exempt to say that the fox they were chasing was by
 definition an orphan, because they suspect that his parents may have died at some stage in the past. If they were to defend themselves they would need to provide evidence that they were chasing a small fox that was dependent on its mother, and that the mother was dead. Quite plainly no other purpose could be intended.

Gregory Barker: Labour Members cannot obfuscate the basic fundamental truth. If foxes are shot in the closed season then orphaned cubs will be created. There is a very real animal welfare issue to be addressed. Simply changing the definition will not alter the fact that there will be starving cubs that will take days to die a very nasty, grisly death as a direct result of legislation enacted in this House with the support of Labour Members. The blood will be on their hands.

Ian Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman just said that there is no shooting in the closed season. That was the inference of the comments he just made.

Gregory Barker: There will be shooting. Let me make myself absolutely clear.—[Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. I try as diligently as I can to follow hon. Members' contributions, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to do so because of interventions. I would like to hear the hon. Gentleman develop his arguments.

Gregory Barker: Let me return to the Protection of Wild Mammals Act (Scotland) 2002. This particular provision was supported by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
 In evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Rural Development Committee, James Morris of the SSPCA said: 
''If terriers were sent underground only to kill cubs, there would be no cruelty to the cubs and the terrier would not suffer any damage.''
 That was on 21 November 2000. 
 The Burns report suggested that there should be an exception from the general offence for orphaned cubs underground. 
''It would be necessary to consider the forms of exceptions that should apply in particular areas, especially sheep-rearing upland areas, and for particular cases, such as the pursuit of injured deer, or dealing with orphaned foxes underground.''
 Unless the Bill is amended, infant foxes will be allowed to lie and suffer underground for days on end simply so that the deep malignant prejudice against country sports and practices that runs through the legislation is not offended. 
 If Labour Members are truly concerned about animal welfare, they will examine their consciences and consider the provisions in the amendment. This has nothing to do with people in red coats or with the class revenge that so often informs the emotive arguments that we hear from them. First and foremost, this is about animal welfare. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) may scoff and laugh, but would she like those cubs to die a long and unreasonable death? That will be the unpleasant result, but you choose to dismiss it from your mind.

George Stevenson: Order. I am obliged to point out that there is a protocol for addressing hon. Members.

Gregory Barker: I apologise, Mr. Stevenson, to you and the Committee. I am still a relative novice in this place, and occasionally I slip into language that I should not use. My argument is well founded, however.
 Amendment No. 56 follows a similar theme, but puts animal welfare first. It would allow a dog to go below ground to relieve a wild mammal suffering from disease or injury. We accept that it is kinder to dispatch an orphaned cub, so it surely must be kinder to dispatch a diseased or injured wild mammal, in particular a fox or a fox cub. The inevitable consequence of a ban or greater restrictions on hunting is that more foxes will be shot and a significant proportion of them will be wounded because of inadvertent or incompetent shooting. 
 A wounded fox will often go to ground, where it will die a slow and painful death from blood poisoning or starvation, which can take many days. It is not enough to say, ''Out of sight, out of mind.'' So long as its death has not been hastened by the local hunt, it appears that Labour Members will sleep easily. As the death of the fox has not been caused by the hunt, they can detach themselves. If they are genuinely interested in the welfare of the mammal, they will support the amendment, which will allow its hasty and merciful dispatch. 
 Dogs are used to locate wounded or orphaned cubs below ground, after which the cubs are humanely shot as soon as possible, as they are either bolted or uncovered. If the prohibition on dogs going underground is not removed, it will be impossible to reduce the suffering of injured or diseased foxes, or, under amendment No. 54, orphaned cubs. That is the animal welfare case. As it stands, the Bill does nothing for animal welfare, but this part will worsen it and act as a disincentive to relieving animal suffering.

Alan Whitehead: Has the hon. Gentleman considered tabling amendments on a closed season for fox shooting? I am surprised that he has not considered that, bearing in mind the force of his arguments.

Gregory Barker: That does not form part of the discussion of the amendment.

George Stevenson: Quite right.

Hugo Swire: Were my hon. Friend to take that advice and table an amendment that would curtail the shooting of foxes, it would have wider applications for the shooting community, which the Minister has consistently promised will not be the case.

George Stevenson: Order. Hon. Members will know that I cannot allow a debate on amendments that have not been tabled or speculative debate on what may or may not be contained in them.

Gregory Barker: I have already argued that it is kinder to dispatch orphaned cubs and diseased and injured foxes. There is yet another category with which amendment No. 55 deals. It would exempt hunting to relieve an animal that is starving.
 Most people with even a passing understanding of the countryside will know that injured or diseased animals more often than not die of starvation before the effects of disease or injury take their final toll. Much depends on the nature of the disease or injury. Starvation is a terrible way for an animal to die. I challenge any Labour Member to say otherwise. Surely it is more humane to dispatch a starving animal than simply to allow nature to take its course. 
 There are people who reject the need to manage the fox population. One way in which nature regulates populations that have no natural predators other than man is by old age and starvation. If the population grows to a level at which sources of food are inadequate, starvation follows for individuals that are unable to find food, that are too old to hunt or are wounded and cannot hunt or scavenge for themselves. That explains why it is important that wild mammal species should be managed at levels that are sustainable in terms of human interest and for the mammal population as a whole. It is a lesson that can be uniformly applied and will be particularly appropriate when we discuss the management of deer herds on Exmoor. 
 At present, the Bill allows the killing of diseased or injured foxes. Amendment No. 344 would qualify that by requiring the person seeking to relieve the suffering to have knowledge of the degree of seriousness of the injury and would remove the provision to allow the culling of diseased animals. As such, it actively discourages the relief of suffering in the most efficient way, which is by using dogs. It is the worst type of amendment. It is motivated by the extremism of unfeeling and unbending principles, which fly in the face of decent and compassionate best practice towards wild creatures. This is not informed by animal welfare; it is simply informed by absolute, outright prejudice. 
 The use of the word ''seriously'' introduces uncertainty and subjectivity into the Bill, which is unacceptable. When is an injury a serious injury? What might appear to be a minor injury could develop into a serious injury. Where does the Bill draw the line? Does it mean objectively serious, or serious in the opinion of the accused? To reverse the burden of proof, as the Bill does, is bad enough; to require the accused to prove something so imprecise is even worse. It would positively discourage acts of mercy. Finding any animal that might have been injured to relieve its suffering should be positively encouraged, except of course, in the anthropomorphic Walt Disney world that some Government Members seem to inhabit. 
 What is the appropriate action to relieve suffering that is mentioned in paragraph 7(6)? As the burden is on the accused to prove that defence, people may become reticent about rescuing wounded animals.

Alan Whitehead: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument with some interest.

Mike Hall: You are doing well.

Alan Whitehead: I am doing my best. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that were a rat to be killed there could be orphaned rats or, were a rabbit to be killed, there could be orphaned rabbits? Would he therefore
 advocate, on the grounds of consistency put forward by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, that agencies should be set up to ensure that orphaned rats and rabbits are dispatched, so that he can have moral consistency in his argument?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman gives a profound critique of the Bill. It is totally prejudiced, it is without any intellectual integrity, and it is riddled with complexity and contradiction. He is absolutely right—there is no difference between rats or rabbits and any other type of mammal. The difference exists entirely in the mind of the Minister. It just so happens that rabbits and rats do not fit the hon. Gentleman's anthropomorphic model of the world.

James Gray: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) obviously has not read the Bill. Orphaned rats and rabbits are already exempt under the Bill. We can use dogs to hunt them. The amendments would allow the use of dogs to hunt foxes as well.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes a very sound point. The intervention of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test exposes the sheer hypocrisy of the legislation.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend did not have the pleasure that I had of participating in the debates on the previous Bill on the subject. On that occasion, Opposition Members laughed at the nonsense of that Bill. It is a remarkable achievement that now Government Members are beginning to laugh as well—obviously, this Bill is ludicrous.

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is disgusting that Government Members are so little interested in the real issues of animal welfare that their attention wanders the moment we drift away from talking about foxhunts. We are discussing the guts of the Bill, which will have a profound effect on animal welfare. They can shake their head as much as they like, but they will have to live with the fact that the interests of wild mammals will be severely prejudiced if they refuse to support the amendment.
 I have deviated again from what I intended to say. To return to paragraph 7(6), if the burden is too onerous, many people, when walking in the countryside or participating in country pursuits, will be much more reluctant to put an animal out of its misery for fear of attracting criminal prosecution. The paragraph must be read subject to the caveat that the belief of the accused must be a reasonable belief. As such, a belief that an animal was seriously injured would not be enough to save a defendant from a conviction if a court found that the injury was not serious enough to merit the belief. 
 People should not be discouraged by the fear that their opinion of what amounts to serious injury might differ from that of others. We should all be encouraged, where appropriate, to put animals out of their misery. Government Members will show, by not supporting the amendment, that they live in a totally different world. 
 The condition in paragraph 7(3) that 
''the hunting is undertaken for the purpose of relieving the wild mammal's suffering''
 already provides adequate protection without the requirement for the defendant to be certain that the animal was seriously injured. The purpose of this part of the schedule is to allow the dispatch of a diseased animal in order to prevent it from infecting others. That is vitally important for welfare and conservation. It is madness, from an animal welfare perspective, to restrict the application of this part of the schedule to injured animals and exclude diseased animals, as this amendment would. Once again, we see that the real concern of those opposed to hunting is to restrict human freedoms because they dislike an activity, not because that restriction does anything to improve animal welfare. Here, the proposal would actually harm animal welfare. 
 Dogs can be used very effectively to track a diseased fox, following the scent from where it was seen to where it is resting, so that it can be dispatched. My hunt has often stayed out late, beyond the intended time, because it has had sight of a diseased fox or one with three legs that has been involved in a motor car accident. It has then gone after that fox and stayed out until it has been dispatched. 
 Foxes frequently suffer from debilitating and highly contagious diseases, particularly mange, which comes in three varieties and is caused by different species of mite—tiny eight-legged parasites, related to spiders. It could be argued that a mangy fox was, in effect, seriously injured. It all depends on what is understood by ''injured''. 
 Mange is a terrible condition. I hope that we all agree on that. Untreated, it will cause the death of an infected fox or even domestic animal, but wilfully and deliberately to deny foxes an early and welcome dispatch from that suffering, which would happen were amendment No. 344 accepted, would be nothing less than callous and thoroughly cold-hearted. I very much hope that, in the interests of the fox, common sense will prevail and that that amendment will be withdrawn. 
 I am a little unclear about what amendments Nos. 345 and 346 seek to achieve. No doubt I will be enlightened. The Bill stipulates that the purpose of hunting is to relieve a wild mammal's suffering or treat its disease. To treat the disease, one must treat the wild mammal. It is conceivable that the amendment seeks to leave the nature of treatment more open, to allow more treatment than simply the treatment of disease. I would welcome elucidation on that. 
 The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire deal exclusively with animal welfare. They deal with the prompt and speedy dispatch of suffering animals. The legislation will increase those animals' suffering. If hon. Members deny that, they will have to answer to more people than just themselves.

Paul Holmes: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 344, 345 and 346. As I pointed
 out when dealing with amendment No. 347, we are discussing not the general arguments on hunting with hounds but specific provisions. Paragraph 6, for example, concerns rescuing or recapturing an animal that has escaped. Paragraph 7, to which these amendments refer, deals with rescuing a diseased or injured animal. It is not about animals that are picked up in the general course of hunting. It implies that the purpose of going out is to seek the diseased or injured animal. Comments about hunting in general are not relevant here.
 The amendments would remove potentially ambiguous wording that could, deliberately or inadvertently, lead to abuse of the regulations and to many difficult appeals and legal wrangling on interpretation. The amendments would remove the hunting of diseased animals from the categories of exempt hunting for the purpose of rescuing wild animals. In part, that is because the word ''disease'' is too vague. It would, for example, allow hunters to argue that a fox with a mild bout of fox flu was a legitimate target.

James Gray: How on earth would the hunters know about the fox's flu?

Paul Holmes: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. How would the hunters know?

James Gray: Exactly. They could not therefore claim the disease as a defence. My point is perhaps too subtle for the hon. Gentleman. If the hunters do not know that the fox has flu, they cannot use that flu as their defence.

Paul Holmes: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) asks from a sedentary position why the hunters were hunting in that case. Given the legislation's vague wording, they could claim that they thought that the fox was diseased.

George Stevenson: Order. Within order, hon. Members can argue as vigorously as they like about the comments and arguments that are put forward. Ribald laughter does not, however, help anybody. [Interruption.] There are times when we all have to bite our tongues.

Paul Holmes: Hunters could genuinely or spuriously argue that they had pursued and killed a moulting fox because they had mistaken it for a fox with mange. The word ''disease'' provides a loophole because it is so vague. It has to be questioned how far dogs, whether it is 40 hounds or two labradors, can distinguish and ignore the scent of a healthy animal and only follow the scent trail of the target diseased or injured animal, which is supposedly being pursued under paragraph 7 of schedule 1.
 Hunts are counter-productive because they scatter groups of mangy foxes—we are told that scattering foxes is one of the virtues of hunts—which spreads disease rather than containing or eradicating it in a specific area. The ineffectiveness of hunting with hounds to control disease was shown in the mange epidemic that spread through the Mendip farmers hunt country to infect the Bristol fox population, killing an estimated 97 per cent. of foxes in Bristol between 1994 and 1996. As well as avoiding confusion 
 and legal wrangling over definitions of disease, humane traps, which caught 9,000 foxes in London last year, would be more effective than dogs in dealing with diseased animals. One could catch, identify and treat or humanely kill diseased animals. Paragraph 7 deals with diseased animals as opposed to general hunting.

Adrian Flook: Could the hon. Gentleman clarify how the foxes that the Mendip farmers hunt killed came to infect the foxes in Bristol? Where did he get that information?

Paul Holmes: The argument has been advanced that the mange epidemic in Bristol, where, of course, there is no foxhunt, is evidence of foxhunting's effectiveness in controlling diseased animals. [Hon. Members: ''What?''] One has only to look at the verbatim record of previous sittings of the Committee. My point is that the mange epidemic in Bristol is generally accepted to have spread through the Mendip farmers hunt country. If the hunts were as effective in controlling disease as we have heard in previous sittings, mange would not have spread. A supposed virtue of a hunt is that it scatters concentrations of foxes. Where there are concentrations of foxes with mange—in that case, in Mendip farmers hunt country in 1993–94—killing one and scattering the rest means scattering disease further afield.
 The opening comments on my amendment by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) presupposed that hunting with dogs is the most effective way to isolate an animal that is thought to be diseased or injured. I have already made the case that there are much more effective methods such as the use of humane traps. Again, I remind the Committee that paragraph 7 does not concern general hunting. It is for locating a diseased or injured animal to identify whether it needs to be killed or treated.

Gregory Barker: How will the traps distinguish between fit and unfit foxes? Does one catch dozens of fit foxes to arrive at the one that is not fit?

Paul Holmes: To return to our earlier discussion about mink, if one catches an animal other than the target animal in a humane trap, one can release it. If one were seeking to identify a particular diseased or injured animal, the use of a humane trap would allow one to do so; the use of a pack of hounds, which kill an animal when they catch it before the huntsmen can control them, would not. I will say it for the fourth time. The purpose of paragraph 7 is not the general hunting of animals at random to see what one picks up; it is locating a specific animal that one is concerned is diseased or injured to see whether it should be put down humanely or treated and released. One cannot assess an animal's condition if it has been torn to bits by a pack of 40 hounds.
 Amendment No. 344 would replace the vague category of ''injured'' animals with the more precise ''seriously injured''. That would remove the potential for confusion, genuine mistakes and spurious defences of illegal hunting by using a slight or supposed injury as an excuse to hunt an animal. For example, some hon. Members may injure themselves by twisting an ankle and limping. That does not mean that they 
 should be hunted and put down, although there may be arguments about that. The same is true of many minor injuries to animals. For example, a stag or fox that is seen or thought to be limping, which would be an excuse for hunting under paragraph 7, may well have hurt a tendon, which would naturally repair itself within a few days. There is therefore no reason to hunt and kill that animal.

Hugo Swire: This is a fascinating insight into the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the countryside. If he breaks his leg, there is a fair chance that it may heal. If a deer or fox broke its leg, how long does he think it would be before it were back to normal?

Paul Holmes: It appears that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said. I was talking about an animal that was seen or perceived to be limping rather than one that was walking around with a broken leg. A minor injury or the claimed perception of a minor injury could therefore be used to justify hunting an animal. People could claim that they thought that an animal was injured although there was no such injury. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. The Chair must be able to hear what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say.

Paul Holmes: If the legislation were tightened up to include ''seriously injured'' animals, one would have to have more rational reasons such as walking on three legs rather than merely limping.

Edward Garnier: I know that the hon. Gentleman is seriously attempting to make the Bill workable, but I want him to tell us how anybody, unless they capture the fox or animal in the first place, can tell whether a limp is serious or is something that will clear up over the afternoon. Terriers spend a lot of their time running around on three legs.

Paul Holmes: One of the answers is the distinction between a perceived minor injury and a serious injury. Paragraph 7 concerns locating an animal that one thinks is injured and then either humanely dispatching it or treating it. One cannot do that with dogs, but one can do it with a humane trap, which allows one to assess an injury.
 From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle was laughing at the concept of animals going round on three legs, but a few minutes ago he gave an example in which his hunt dispatched a fox that was going round on three legs because it had been hit by a car. In the case of a serious injury, one can see that an animal is seriously injured. I am trying to remove the loophole whereby hunts could claim that they thought that an animal was limping so they hunted it just in case. Without the amendment, the Minister would undoubtedly face a series of legal challenges in which hunters genuinely and not so genuinely contested cases because they thought that the animal or quarry was injured.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he is doing a valuable service to us all in explaining his case. Let us assume that some ill-motivated people who enjoy hunting espy a limping
 animal. They set their hounds on to it, they kill it and then the hon. Member for Chesterfield or his hon. Friends come along and say, ''I want to prosecute that group of people for hunting an animal that is not seriously injured.'' By then the animal is dead. How are the police or the Crown Prosecution Service to assemble the evidence that would enable the amendment that the hon. Gentleman wishes to introduce to be dealt with by the courts?

Paul Holmes: There are two points in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The first is that, as we saw with the detailed autopsy evidence submitted to the Burns inquiry, one can take a fox that has been torn apart by a pack of hounds and, by examining it, identify three or four separate injuries, some of which are old and some new, and identify the cause of death.
 More to the point, the hon. and learned Gentleman again shows that he has not read paragraph 7(6), which relates to the fifth condition. That states clearly that that sort of hunting is exempt only if 
''reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after the wild mammal is found''
 not hunted and torn to pieces by the pack, but found— 
''appropriate action (if any) is taken to relieve its suffering or to treat its disease''.
 The presumption of paragraph 7 is not that hunters are hunting with a pack of hounds to kill the animal as soon as it is caught, but that they are hunting the animal to assess whether it should be humanely dispatched or treated and released. We are not talking about general hunting.

Edward Garnier: We may be at cross purposes. Let us assume that the hon. Gentleman's amendment becomes law. I am worried that the courts will be faced with people like him frequently turning up in court saying, ''I want to have these people prosecuted, because they were chasing an animal that was not seriously injured.'' The beast is now dead. The Crown Prosecution Service or the prosecutor will have to present evidence that is likely to persuade the court that a case has been made. I find it difficult to see how the hon. Gentleman would translate his amendment into evidential material that would allow the prosecution to succeed.

Paul Holmes: Again I refer to what I think was the second case in the autopsy reports conducted for the Burns inquiry. An autopsy was done on a fox that had been killed to see what had been the cause of death. Was it the sudden bite to the neck by a hound, which we are always told is what a pack of hounds does? The autopsy found a few old shotgun pellets—the fibrous tissue around them showed that the wounds had healed—and that the dog had been badly savaged. After seven minutes of hunting, it had been savaged and had gone to ground. The autopsy could document the severe injuries to the fox: his eye and cheeks had been ripped and so forth. The fox was then located by a terrier. It was dug out after 25 minutes and dispatched with two bullets from a .22 pistol. Again the autopsy could specify that the first bullet had not
 killed it and the second one had. Therefore, the autopsy report could say specifically, from a sequence of three or four separate injuries, one of which was quite old, what the animal's condition was and which injuries had killed it.
 If hunters kill a fox or stag, saying that they thought it was injured enough to warrant hunting, the autopsy could say whether it indeed had a broken leg or a serious injury before being caught and dispatched by the dogs. That would be fairly clear cut. If the hunters could argue that they had a legitimate ground for hunting the stag or the fox because they thought it was injured or limping, it would be a grey area of the law. If the law were amended as I propose by the addition of the word ''seriously'', that would be far more evident to the naked eye and would give the hunters the evidence to go ahead with the hunt.

Peter Luff: On a point of information, the hon. Gentleman said that a dog had been savaged.

Hon. Members: He meant a fox.

Peter Luff: I am sorry. That is my mistake. A fox had gone to ground. What is the reference for that case so that I can check it? I do not know about it.

Paul Holmes: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the reference when I look at my notes. I may be confusing two separate autopsy cases. One was in the Burns inquiry and one was about terrier hunting, but they make the same point. The autopsies were used to establish a sequence of injuries, some old and some current. There were several different sets of current injuries, but the autopsy could clearly distinguish which were old, which were new and which had resulted in death. Therefore, it is simple to establish the state of the animal before it was caught and when it was dispatched, and which injury led to its dispatch.

Gregory Barker: If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is true, why does he think that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals supported the use of dogs for digging out cubs, for example?

Paul Holmes: I cannot comment on that, as I have not read the report. All I can say is that all the other reports from other societies, as well as the Burns inquiry, concluded that the use of terriers to dig out animals from underground seriously compromised the welfare of those animals and that there should be better methods of dealing with such situations.
 Some more seriously injured animals will be less able to hunt and get their food in the natural way. They would therefore be even easier to bait and bring into humane traps in the way that healthy foxes can be on a large scale. With a humane trap one could easily establish whether the animal was injured seriously enough to warrant humane dispatch or whether it should be treated and released. That is the purpose of paragraph 7. The idea of a hunt catching an injured fox, treating it and releasing it is nonsensical, but a number of parts of the Bill presuppose that the hunt will do some nonsensical things. A humane trap is far more effective than hunting with 40 dogs or two dogs.

John Gummer: I am trying to discover who will introduce these humane traps into the countryside. Who are the people who will go round with the humane traps? It is important for the Committee to understand how the hon. Gentleman sees the process taking place and who will do it.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Paul Holmes: I was responding to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, but before I return to that, I want to go back to a question I was asked earlier when I could not immediately bring the information to hand.
 I was referring to a case in which an autopsy had clearly distinguished three separate injuries to the dead animal, some were old, some were new and some were fatal. The case was described as follows: 
''Fox 2 (Royal Artillery, Salisbury plain, 3 April 2000) Post Mortem conducted for the Burns Inquiry by the University of Bristol''.
 The report stated: 
''This animal was hunted with hounds for approximately 7 minutes. The fox then went to ground and a terrier equipped with a radio collar was sent down. After approximately 25 minutes of digging, the fox was revealed, the terrier removed, and the fox shot in the hole with a .22 calibre single shot pistol. Two shots were required''
 to kill it. The autopsy showed signs of pre-death trauma, which would be relevant to establishing a court case and whether the animal had a serious injury before the hunt commenced. It showed the presence of some shotgun pellets from a previous injury. It said: 
''Dissection of individual pellets showed them to be walled off in fibrous tissue indicating healing of the pellet wounds.''
 That old wound had not killed or left the fox seriously injured. The autopsy also showed that, after commencement of the hunt and when the terrier had gone underground, there were 
''Multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head.
Damage to the Right eye.
Bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck.''
 The autopsy then described the third set of wounds: 
A .22 calibre bullet in the muscle tissue of the Left shoulder region''.
 A second bullet was required to dispatch the fox. There were three separate sets of injury: one old one which no longer affected the fox because it had recovered from that; a series of traumatic wounds from the terrier after fighting with it underground for a prolonged period, because it took 25 minutes for the diggers to uncover what was going on; and a shot from a gun to dispatch it. 
 It someone contested in a court of law whether hunters had dispatched a fox that was not seriously injured, it would be feasible for the autopsy to go into considerable detail about the injuries to the dead animal—which led to its death, which were old, which were new—and therefore to establish whether serious injury had existed before the hunt dispatched it.

Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that his evidence clearly makes the point that shooting foxes is a sure way of injuring them, but a very bad way of dispatching them, whether one uses pellets or a .22 pistol at close quarters?

Paul Holmes: I think that the point reinforces one that was made previously. The Burns report states categorically in the first part of the paragraph—which Conservative Members do not normally quote—that it is generally accepted according to all the evidence that dispatching a fox by lamping and a high-powered rifle is the most humane method. That is a different argument, and a different type of shooting. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire described how a friend of his dispatched 126 foxes in two nights. It was implied that he did so with 126 clean shots, rather than causing 126 foxes to limp off to die of gangrene weeks later.

James Gray: No, I never gave that impression at all. The whole point was that the kills might not have been clean. Some of the foxes may have limped off and died in pain with gangrene elsewhere.

Paul Holmes: I think that the record will show that that is not what the hon. Gentleman said at the time. He implied that they were shot dead on the spot over the course of two nights.
 I return to the question from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, who has not yet returned. Who would I envisage carrying out humane trapping? That is a question for the Minister to answer, not me. It is his legislation; I am trying to improve it. I have some doubts about its purpose. 
 The intention in paragraph 7 is to exempt hunting designed to locate a diseased or injured animal—I think that we should remove the word ''diseased'' and replace ''injured'' with ''seriously injured''—and then to assess whether it should be humanely dispatched or treated and released. I cannot conceive of a hunt with 40 hounds and a following trail of horsemen catching the animal—it would be ripped to bits by the hounds before they could be brought under control anyway—assessing the animal's condition, and returning it to the wild after they had treated it. I cannot conceive of that, but it is not my legislation.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman has given no thought as to who might round up those so-called injured foxes to check on their welfare, and I understand why not. Has he given any thought to who will pronounce whether they are fit to be released back into the wild or dispatched?

Paul Holmes: I think that the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand what I am saying if he suggests that I have not given the matter any thought. I have given it a lot of thought, but it is not my legislation. The question would be better directed to the Minister. Who does he think should carry out humane trapping, treating and releasing? It certainly will not be the organised fox hounds.
 We have yet to vote on amendment No. 347, which was grouped with a previous amendment. It would restrict the number of dogs to be used in humane hunting, trapping, assessing and releasing, or humanely dispatching, to a maximum of two to 
 locate an animal, not 40, because that number of dogs would kill the animal before anyone could carry out an assessment.

Adrian Flook: Given that the hon. Gentleman is keen for his amendment to be adopted, would he comment on the fact that only 1 per cent. of all foxes, according to the Game Conservancy Trust, are captured in so-called humane traps? What will happen to the other 99 per cent. of foxes?

Paul Holmes: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's figure of 1 per cent. At the start of the breeding season, it is estimated that there are about 200,000 foxes in Britain. During the breeding season that number rises to about 600,000. The figures are not precise. About 400,000 die during the course of the year, many of which are young cubs. Of those animals, 25,000 are killed by hunts and 150,000 are shot. Some 9,000 were caught by humane traps in London alone. I am not sure how the figure of 1 per cent. matches up to those figures. The hon. Gentleman will have to go back to his source.
 I do not intend to defend the Minister's legislation, but to tighten what I perceive to be two serious loopholes in the wording. Those loopholes would lead to a whole series of legal contests relating to whether a hunt thought an animal was diseased, and if so, on what evidence it had for believing that. It may hunt the animal on just suspicion: ''It might be diseased, so we'd better hunt it.'' How does one prove afterwards whether the intent was there? It is easy enough to suspect that an animal is injured, but one could not prove it afterwards. To suspect it is seriously injured is a different matter. 
 Some more seriously injured animals, which cannot hunt or get food in the normal way, would be even more susceptible to going into a humane trap than, for example, perfectly healthy foxes in London have been over the past year. One could then carry out an assessment, if that was the purpose, and could decide to dispatch the fox humanely or to treat it. If one had caught a perfectly healthy animal, one could release it. Under the provisions, catching a diseased or injured animal is the only purpose one would have for carrying out that aspect of hunting.

James Gray: Why would a diseased or injured fox be more likely than a healthy fox to go into a humane trap?

Paul Holmes: As I have already said twice, if it is diseased or injured to an extent that affects it, it will not be able to hunt or get its natural food in the normal way. In the case of urban foxes, natural food means a McDonald's meal scavenged from a waste bin. However, we are talking about foxes in the countryside. An injured fox would be more likely to go for food put out as bait because it would be much easier to get hold of and would not run away. I would have thought that that was self-evident.

Gregory Barker: Is it not the case that a diseased or injured fox is much more likely to stay underground?

Paul Holmes: That is exactly what I am going to say in my next paragraph.

Hugo Swire: You mean there is more?

Paul Holmes: There certainly is. The most seriously injured animals would be far more likely to go to ground. In those cases, the use of one or two dogs to locate and possibly flush an injured animal from cover—we heard an hon. Member some time ago talking about mangy foxes inside a haystack that were uncovered by a hunt—would be justified under paragraph 7 and would have utility. I cannot see how using a pack of 40 hounds would be an effective and efficient way of locating a seriously injured animal that had gone to ground.
 The amendments will remove loopholes and tighten up vague definitions in paragraph 7, and so avoid prolonged legal wrangling over the interpretation of the conditions for exemption. My amendments should be considered separately from amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56.

Rob Marris: My remarks will principally be about amendment No. 54, but I also want to deal with the way in which the debate has been conducted. Opposition Members continue to suggest that Labour Members are not listening to them. Well, we have listened to stories about the 400,000 carcases picked up and about saving farmers £3.7 million; we have listened to stories about the 70 deer taken out of 2,800; we have listened to stories about forests; we listened this morning to stories about 124 mink trapped in 35,450 trap nights and so on. We are listening.
 However, when we discuss amendment No. 54 and other parts of the Bill, there are difficulties because Conservative Members do not listen to us. I have been here for almost all of every Committee sitting and I do not recall—I stand ready to be corrected—a single Labour Member talking about red coats. Yet Opposition Members consistently accuse us of banging on about red coats. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made some rather intemperate remarks on that subject in relation to amendment No. 54. It gets worse. When I initially intervened on the hon. Gentleman, I said that I had some sympathy with his amendment, but he bulldozed through it and was not even listening. I said that I was sympathetic to the question of orphans, but I did not think that he had got the wording right. He cited the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, which contains a definition. It says that 
''an 'orphaned' fox means a fox, the mother of which is dead, which is too young to survive on its own''.
 Later on, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire did not listen to himself and suggested in an intervention on the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) that an intervention made by one of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was too subtle. I have to say that sometimes what Labour Members say seems to be too subtle for Opposition Members. We point out, often constructively, that the amendments that they have tabled, including amendment No. 54, do not achieve what they intend, yet they bulldoze through their remarks and do not listen or belatedly pick up on our comments and withdraw the amendments. Sometimes they do not listen to themselves. For example, the hon. and learned 
 Member for Harborough accused me of misquoting him about the hand in the pocket. I have checked Hansard and I did not misquote him. From what he said, he does not understand criminal law. 
 That is the difficulty in debating amendment No. 54. I suggest that Opposition Members do us the credit of listening—we often do them that credit. For example, they listened to the Minister when we discussed the question of 40 dogs versus two in relation to amendment No. 50, and my right hon. Friend the Minister said that he would consider that. I told the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that I had sympathy with orphaned amendment No. 54, but did not think that it was correctly cast. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire, again too subtle for his own good, intervened on the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and said words to the effect: ''Oh, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West doesn't understand this at all, because he gives the example of Her Majesty the Queen now being orphaned. If you used orphan in that sense, you could go out and hunt any wild mammal.'' That is precisely the point that I was making. Perhaps I was too subtle for the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I have sympathy with amendment No. 54, but I could not support it as it is cast. I suspect that it is not cast as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle intended.

Gregory Barker: We are suspicious of probing amendments and queries from Labour Members, because every single move that they make is designed to tighten like a ratchet the permissive and liberal nature of the regulation. However, I take the hon. Gentleman at his word. Is he saying that he supports the principle of amendment No. 54 and simply wants the words tightened so that the principle can be included in the Bill?

Rob Marris: I am saying that I have much sympathy with the spirit, as I take it, of amendment No. 54, and shall be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Minister says on it.

Edward Garnier: One thing of which I shall not accuse the hon. Gentleman is undue subtlety.
 I should like to try to pull some sense into the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Chesterfield. I have grave doubts that introducing the expression ''seriously'' into paragraph 7(2) so that the first condition reads 
''that the hunter reasonably believes that the wild mammal is or may be seriously injured''
 will assist his undoubted object of promoting animal welfare. 
 I submit that the problem that he has to overcome is that the reasonable belief must be that of the hunter, not of some third party observing the event, or the animal welfare group that later hears of the animal's death. I may be wrong—the Minister will correct me if I am—but I think that the burden will be on the prosecution to displace that reasonable belief. It will be up to the Crown, or the prosecutor, to show that the hunter did not hold that reasonable belief. The hunter will have simply to place before the court the fact that he had that reasonable belief, although he will need evidence to sustain that assertion. It will not be 
 for him to prove his innocence; just as in the law of self-defence, once the issue of reasonable belief has been raised, it will be for the prosecution to disprove it. I suspect that it will find that evidentially extremely difficult. 
 The hon. Gentleman relied on post mortem evidence from earlier cases, and mentioned a fox killed by the Royal Artillery hunt on Salisbury plain. The anecdote was fascinating, but I am not sure whether it is to the point here. Post mortems, especially of small animals, are helpful in showing the cause of death, but they cannot establish whether the defendant hunter had a reasonable belief that the mammal was seriously injured or, in the current wording, ''diseased or injured''. The hon. Gentleman must come to terms with some huge, practical difficulties if he is to improve the Bill.

Paul Holmes: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making precisely the point that I made. If hunters could argue that they thought that an animal was injured, in the loose sense of the word, it would be impossible for an autopsy to establish whether some very minor injury made the fox or stag appear to be limping so that the hunt thought that it had better hunt it. On the other hand, an autopsy such as the one I read out in detail—I have many more fairly gruesome ones of foxes that have been disembowelled by the hunt—can be extremely precise about a huge range of injuries in an animal that has been torn to pieces by a pack of 40 hounds. They can certainly distinguish between an old wound, such as a broken leg, and more recent wounds.

Edward Garnier: We had that argument before. The hon. Gentleman has not told me anything new. I was not impressed when he first said it and I am no more impressed the second time round.
 The amendment will create genuine practical and evidential difficulties. The hon. Gentleman tried to persuade us that traps should be used. I am not convinced, and I am assisted by a document published by the Game Conservancy Trust in 2000 called ''Fox Control in the Countryside'', page 10 of which refers to traps and snares. It states: 
''Only live-capture traps and neck snares are allowed under UK legislation. Live-capture traps depend on the fox first entering a box or cage structure and then triggering a door release mechanism. Innate or learned wariness in the fox may prevent either of these things happening. Live-capture traps are extremely successful in an urban context, but rural foxes are typically cautious of novel man-made objects, several limiting the efficacy of traps. Among professional gamekeepers, live-capture traps account for just 1% of all foxes taken. They are more successful when set at poultry runs or release pens than elsewhere, but it is illegal to bait a trap deliberately with a live bird.''
 If healthy foxes are wary of a trap, sick, injured or diseased foxes will be yet more wary of going into a box, cage or trap that looks unusual to them. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for his motives, although I am not sanguine about his end desires, but I urge him when tabling amendments to understand a little more about what goes on in the field and to come to terms with nature, which requires nasty things—in human 
 terms—to happen. That is what happens in the farm and the field, outside the urban environment.

Andrew George: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that my hon. Friend should know what goes on in the field, and I am certain that he does. As I have told the Committee, I have seen the operation of and can vouch for the existence of humane traps, which work, using dead poultry. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten about that. If he is arguing that there should be ''reasonable belief'', frankly, he is saying that there is a potential loophole that would allow a hunter to hunt a fox that was not diseased or seriously injured because the prosecution would have to prove that the belief was unreasonable. On both counts, his argument is fallacious.

Edward Garnier: That was a speech, not an intervention. I have finished, Mr. Stevenson.

Alun Michael: On the three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I have some sympathy with the intention of wishing to reduce suffering. We must consider the effect of the amendments, however, and the practical steps that might make a contribution, as distinct from doing something from worthy motives that would not have the desired effect.
 The first of those amendments, No. 54, would insert the word ''orphaned''. The meaning is not as certain as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire tried to suggest when he intervened almost to rescue the interpretation. It is difficult to define ''orphaned''. It is not clear and it is certainly sensible to consider the possibility of unintended consequences. The definition is wide. The hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that the clause is not limited to cubs; it refers to animals of any age. The intention may be worthy, but the meaning of the amendment is broad and would be dangerous.

James Gray: Would the Minister be content with the amendment if we then tabled an amendment to clause 45, with which we will deal later, to include the definition of ''orphaned cub'' that is used in the Scottish legislation? We would then know precisely what is meant by the term ''orphan'' and the hunt could not make use of any false description.

Alun Michael: I have not considered that matter. I have dealt with the amendment as it stands. I am always willing to consider the impact of any suggestions. The impact of the amendment would be so wide that I cannot accept it.

James Gray: May I clarify?

Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman is going to ask me theoretical questions, he will not get an answer. If he has a question that I can answer, I shall be glad to help.

James Gray: We believed that it was plain that ''orphaned'' meant small cubs. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that it was not plain and the definition was too wide and now the Minister is saying so. If he will accept the amendment, we will
 ensure that we put into clause 45 a definition of ''orphaned'' so that it could not be used to justify anything other than the killing of orphaned cubs.

Alun Michael: I am dealing with the amendment that is before the Committee.

James Gray: So am I.

Alun Michael: No, the hon. Gentleman is not. He wants to make an amendment that is so wide as to be meaningless. I cannot accept that. We must consider the impact of any amendment, as well as the intention. We do not read intentions into the law, we accept amendments.

Hugo Swire: For the record, even if the Minister does not feel that he can support the amendment, does he support the thinking behind it and its intent?

Alun Michael: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening when I started to speak. I said that I shared the sympathy of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West for the objective of minimising suffering—of course, I do. If hon. Members make proposals that would work in the Bill, of course I am prepared to look at them. I am not prepared to accept the amendment before us, which is so wide as to be bereft of practical meaning, or to prejudge what I might do if more sensible proposals were made.
 Amendment No. 55 would insert the word ''starvation'' in paragraph 7(3). There is a simple answer to that: starvation would be a form and cause of suffering and to that extent is covered in the schedule. 
 The third proposition was to remove paragraph 7(4), which refers to the use of a dog below ground. Again, I accept that a problem arises when the vixen has been killed and is not returning if we are to avoid the cubs starving underground. The scientific advice is that there are problems with the alternative ways of dealing with that situation. Live traps have been referred to, but cannot always be used in the circumstances. Gassing may not be possible because of the soil type and problems with the earth. 
 As I have said, if there are practical ways to ensure that a humane means of dispatch is provided, I am open to suggestions as well as to the evidence. In general, hon. Members will not be keen to allow the use of dogs below ground unless absolutely necessary because of such welfare needs. 
 I have a general point to make about the need for realism. Death happens all the time in nature. We must be careful not to exacerbate animal suffering, or to interfere with natural processes, some of which involve suffering for some animals. Young animals are orphaned by hunting, but they may also be left in that situation by a variety of other means, such as shooting and road accidents. 
 The amendments of the hon. Member for Chesterfield limit the circumstances in which an individual can be regarded as rescuing a wild animal by removing the basic ground in the Bill that the person believes the animal to be diseased or seriously injured. I recognise his concern and the motivation to ensure that an exemption included for animal welfare 
 reasons is not exploited for purposes that are not justified by the situation. For example, a hunter might claim that he was rescuing a fox that had mange or fox flu without any evidence that there was disease. 
 The drafting of the exception provides a degree of balance. There must be adequate protection for an individual who genuinely hunts for the purpose of relieving a wild mammal's suffering. I believe that the hon. Gentleman did not contest that as a general point. It would become apparent if there were regular abuse of the exception. A one-off abuse is possible, and it is perhaps that possibility on which the hon. Gentleman wished to clamp down. However, it would become apparent if there were regular abuse, and people would then not be able to rely on it. It would become clear that they were not protected. 
 I would be prepared to reconsider the matter if we had evidence of abuse, and I would tighten the conditions further. The exception can be varied by the Secretary of State by affirmative resolution using the powers conferred by clause 3(2). However, it is unlikely that that would be necessary. As I said, it would become obvious that an abuse was taking place, and those who were abusing a genuine and reasonable exception would not be able to rely on it for protection. 
 For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose motivation in tabling the amendments I entirely recognise, will not press the amendment and that none of the other amendments in the groups will be pressed.

Gregory Barker: This has been a lively debate, and I make no apology for the passion that I brought to it in my opening remarks. The debate marries two issues about which I have extremely strong feelings: foxhunting and animal welfare, a subject in which I have had a strong interest for 24 of my 36 years.
 The fact is that unless the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire are incorporated in the Bill, orphaned cubs, however one defines them, injured mammals—often horribly injured—and diseased animals will be left to die a slow, horrible and grisly death. None of us in the Committee want that, and I hope that it will be a rare point of unity among us. 
 I shall suggest something that does not come easily, given the history of the thrust of the Bill, which has been continuously to tighten regulation and thus enact what Conservative Members recognise as nothing short of an outright ban.

Hugo Swire: A de facto ban.

Gregory Barker: Yes, a de facto ban, which is what we believe the Government want to achieve. I heard what the Minister said, and I particularly heard the thoughtful and helpful comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. However, it is no good being sympathetic. One can be sympathetic without any resort to action and one can be sympathetic from a great distance because it implies no compunction to action. If the Minister is saying that he genuinely recognises the animal welfare objectives of these amendments, I would be prepared to withdraw amendment No. 54 to enable the
 Government to return with their own amendment incorporating in the Bill the definition of ''orphan'' that is in the Scottish legislation. Or perhaps the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would like to share with the Minister his obvious legal expertise in drafting a more satisfactory amendment that would achieve those objectives.

James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of testing the Minister's resolve would be for us to table an amendment to clause 45, which includes definitions. It could define ''orphan'' in precisely the way it was defined this afternoon. If the Minister would accept that, it would be a good indication of his intention to return to the matter on Report.

Gregory Barker: I agree and I very much hope that the slight nodding of the Minister's head indicates that he may be receptive to that.

Alun Michael: It is always possible to misinterpret. As I said, if I see suggestions in amendments I will consider them. If they would have the desired effect of minimising suffering without unintended consequences, I will respond positively. However, I am not going to give a commitment in advance of seeing suggestions and I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Gregory Barker: It half satisfies me, but it is a triumph of hope over experience. I take the Minister at his word. It makes no difference to me who drafts the provision if the objective of securing the welfare of an animal that has gone to ground is achieved. I shall withdraw my amendment and hope that the Committee will not support the other amendments in this group because they would place an intolerable burden of proof on those responsible for the day-to-day welfare of wild animals in the countryside. Keepers, kennelmen and people who are deeply entwined with the welfare of animals and wild animals often do not need to be told or to look for signs because they know instinctively when an animal is suffering, in peril, in danger or traumatised. Those people know that intuitively and instinctively and do not need to be told or be given a code. I hope that hon. Members will decline to support the other amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 347, in schedule 1, page 23, line 30, at end insert— 
'(8) The seventh condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs'.—[Paul Holmes.]
 Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Edward Garnier: I beg to move, amendment No. 295, in schedule 1, page 23, line 30, at end add—
'Dog Walking 
 (8) A person does not contravene section 1 where a dog for which that person is responsible chases or pursues a wild mammal and where the person's principal purpose for having that dog in that place is to provide the dog with exercise or other benefits of access to 
an outdoor area, provided that he takes such steps as he can to bring that dog under control as soon as possible.'.
 The amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and would insert an additional paragraph 8 in the schedule. The purpose of the amendment is to include in the Bill the clear point that hunting that occurs as a result of walking a dog is exempt from the effect of the legislation. It is arguable that the Bill as drafted would leave walkers open to prosecution because of the poor definition of the offence, the failure to define what hunting is and the definition of wild mammal. No one needs reminding that hunting is a natural instinct in dogs. As I said on Tuesday, the scope of the offence of hunting is here uncertain. Although the Minister says that one cannot hunt by accident, the Bill is likely to catch followers, who may be convicted even if they have no control or influence over the dog involved in hunting, and individuals walking their dogs in the countryside. 
 As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said when he intervened on me on Tuesday, hunting is or could be an absolute offence. It therefore seems all the more important to make clear in the Bill those whom the law intends to catch and those whom it does not. Because of the absence of a reference to a specific intention to hunt, let alone to a specific intention to cause unnecessary suffering, we should consider the matter with some care.

Rob Marris: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to clause 45(2)(b), where the verb is ''employed''. That suggests an activity, which would not import an offence of strict liability into the Bill, which I think is what he meant by ''absolute offence''. Perhaps he could explain that further.

Edward Garnier: I am not avoiding the hon. Gentleman's point but I shall come to it in due course. I shall briefly discuss what employment might mean in those circumstances, and he will no doubt respond if he disagrees with me.
 I think that we should start by examining the Bill's definition of hunting a wild mammal. Clause 45(2) says: 
''For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where'',
 then sets out conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b). I have some initial problems with a Bill that expands the criminal law and defines a new criminal offence when it sets that out in language as loose as that in subsection (2). To say that the offence ''includes, in particular'' certain things does not tell us what may also be included, although not specified in the Bill. When dealing with criminal legislation, we should import into it the clarity and certainty that we would expect to find in the indictment that will arise in any given prosecution based on an offence under the new legislation. My initial concern is that, even before we get to paragraphs (a) and (b), the preamble is dangerously and, I suggest, unfairly imprecise. 
 A problem that concerns me—it was highlighted by the hon. Gentleman a moment ago—is that to consider what hunting a wild mammal is, or might include ''in particular'', one has to consider the two paragraphs, which refer to a person who 
''engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal''
 with 
''one or more dogs . . . employed in that pursuit''.
 I am sorry to use confusing language, but it is in part provoked by the language of the Bill. It is not clear to me whether participating in the pursuit of a wild mammal requires deliberate intent or activity, or whether it just happens as a result of a dog doing something—albeit that one is nominally in charge of that dog—on its own account.

James Gray: My hon. and learned Friend moves to a central part of the Bill. He may not have been here last week when the Minister made it plain that the offence will be the intent to hunt—not the hunting, killing or the pursuit—which is not referred to in the Bill. That is what he said.

Edward Garnier: I heard someone say from a sedentary position that my hon. Friend has got that wrong again. We do our best.

Nicholas Soames: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware when dealing with the amendment that we are back on the same ground as we were this morning with the dangers to keepers, or those who go out training labradors or young dogs? Such people might have no intent to hunt, but with the current bossiness reigning in the countryside, they might be liable to a private prosecution. The amendment would make the outcome more uncertain.

Edward Garnier: I am concerned about that. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and I discussed it during a previous sitting.
 I want to return to the point that I was attempting to make in relation to the definition of hunting. Dogs, whether they are pets or animals used for field sport, naturally pursue wild mammals. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Edward Garnier: The central importance of a proper definition of hunting a wild mammal is demonstrated when one considers the dangers, unwitting or otherwise, in which those walking their dogs may be placed. I urge the Committee to consider some additional factors to which I want to draw their attention.

Rob Marris: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. He may be about to cover this point but from the way he prefaced his point, I am not sure. The word ''engages'' can be found in clause 45(2)(a). The hon. Gentleman has talked about ''participates'', but does the word ''engages'' not imply a more positive action by the individual who might be walking her dog?

Edward Garnier: I am not sure that it does. One can engage in all sorts of things without intending to do so. The Bill refers to a person engaging or participating in the pursuit of a wild animal. The Minister should make it clear that something has to actively go on in that person's head to bring him within the definition of
 hunting with a wild mammal. If one bears in mind the phrase, ''a person engages'', one associates it with the phrase, ''includes in particular''. A hugely vague criminal offence is being set out.
 I would like to mention the point that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West raised before we adjourned to vote, which dealt with the definition of the word ''employed''. I fully accept that both A and B have to engage before the offence is committed. For instance, a person must engage or participate in the pursuit of a wild animal when one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit. That has to be done according to the black letter of the law, in order for the offence of hunting to be committed. I will not go on about ''engaging'' because the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that sufficiently. 
 On participation, during earlier sittings we discussed followers and incidental watchers; my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon gave us the wonderful example of a French tourist driving across Dartmoor. I do not want to delay the Committee too much on that. Nevertheless, the fact that such arguments have to be raised reveals a lack of certainty in the definition of hunting, which ought to cause us concern. 
 In one sense, ''employ'' is a perfectly ordinary English word. But I am concerned that if it is used in the passive sense by the human—that is to say ''dogs are used'' or ''dogs are engaged in'' pursuing a wild mammal—we will take it out of the direct mental process of the individual human being who started off with the dog on the walk. 
 My concerns are magnified when I see the words in parenthesis in clause 45(2)(b): 
''whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction.''
 One gets a picture of a person going for a walk with their dogs. The dogs do what dogs naturally do; they find a mammal and chase it, and from that point on the dogs are employed in the pursuit. They are being used, or using themselves—it does not matter which—in the pursuit of that wild mammal. The walker has no let-out, because it does not matter whether the dogs are under his control or not. The intention behind clause 45(2)(a) and (b) may be to catch mounted followers in a hunt, who are not literally in control of the pack of hounds. However, it is arguable—I want the Minister to disabuse me—that an innocent walker with more than one dog, or even one dog, could be caught by that loose definition of hunting a wild mammal. 
 It is not as frivolous an argument as it might at first sight appear. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will know that there are some cases in which a passive presence at the scene of a crime can lead to a conviction. The fact that a person is voluntarily and purposely present witnessing the commission of a crime and offers no opposition—though he might reasonably be expected to prevent it and to have the power to do so—or at least expresses his dissent, might in some circumstances form cogent evidence on which a jury would be justified in finding that he wilfully encouraged and so aided and abetted. 
 That is all the more serious because of the loose and unsatisfactory definition in clause 45(2). A person might participate in the pursuit of a wild mammal without realising that he is doing so because, as I have said on a number of occasions, the question of intent is absent from the Bill. It is absurd that a person could be convicted of hunting a wild mammal with a dog under this definition, even though he did not employ any dogs in the hunting aspect within the definition of clause 45(2)(b). None the less, that is perhaps the key clause of the Bill, and the attempted definition of hunting might allow the state of affairs that I have outlined to come to pass. 
 It is not good enough to leave in doubt whether the searching for a wild mammal will fall within the definition of hunting. Will a huntsman be committing a criminal offence once the hounds are within sight of the fox and chasing by sight but not when they are merely following the scent? Equally that would apply to the ordinary walker who has lost sight of his dogs in the wood or on the land that he is crossing. Will the Minister say precisely what he intends to add to criminal law by the definition of hunting in clause 45? 
 A definition of hunting that allows prosecution when a single dog is engaged in the pursuit or, probably, the search of a wild animal without the need to prove an intention in a human being to hunt, provides scope for the unwary to be caught by the Bill. The fear must be that a person taking a dog for a walk in an area that may be inhabited by mammals such as deer or hares could be committing a criminal offence and could be liable to prosecution, whether or not the dog chases any mammal. 
 If the individual is convicted—this perhaps underscores the importance of a clear definition—he could face a fine of up to £5,000 under clause 39 and may have his dog forfeited, which could lead under clause 42(5), to its destruction or disposal. Apart from any moral issues arising from the destruction or disposal of a dog that was following its natural instincts, it would be small consolation to the individual concerned if his conviction was later set aside on a point of law or on appeal. Until we have a genuinely precise definition of hunting, we cannot with confidence exclude dog walkers in certain circumstances from the evil of being caught as hunters. Apart from that—which of itself is unsatisfactory—it is incumbent on Parliament when extending criminal law to define precisely what that means and what constitutes the intended criminal offence. 
 I am sure that the Minister, who has had a number of exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire—some better tempered than others—will want to ensure that members of the Committee at least know what we are talking about, so that when the Bill leaves the House and goes to another place, their Lordships will understand what the Minister and the Committee intended. The one thing that we all want, whether we like the Bill or not, is that it should make sense and be able to withstand being tested in the courts.

Rob Marris: It is not with a great deal of hesitation that I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that he may not be as au fait with country pursuits, or even town pursuits, as he suggests, because the wording of the amendment does not do that which he would like it to do. It talks about taking a dog out—
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Rob Marris: As I was saying before I was so timeously interrupted, the amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough would not do what he seeks. When he spoke to the amendment, he stressed the need for clarity and cross-referred to clause 45(2). As I read it—perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can correct me—amendment No. 295 suggests that the principal purpose of being out with a dog in a certain place is to
''provide the dog with exercise or other benefits of access to an outdoor area''.
 I think that we all know what 
''provide the dog with exercise''
 means. I suspect that 
''other benefits of access to an outdoor area''
 means taking your dog out for a dump. 
 However, the amendment, if passed, would make the situation worse because if does not cover, for example, someone who goes out for a walk and takes a dog for their own protection. Someone walking around muddy fields in a rural area in their wellington boots at 10 pm with a dog that they have taken for protection is not covered, because it is the human that wants the exercise; the dog is incidental. The amendment does not cover that situation, so the person who goes out with a dog for that reason, whom I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would want to protect, would potentially be caught. The amendment therefore makes matters worse.

Edward Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman is right, well done to him; he has exposed a deficiency in the amendment. The answer, however, is not to vote against the amendment, but to amend the Bill further on Report.

Rob Marris: The answer is, at the very least, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw the amendment, which is not necessary; for reasons that I suspect my right hon. Friend the Minister will go into. On an intervention that the hon. and learned Gentleman generously allowed me, I referred to the verbs in clause 45(2): ''engages'', ''participates'' and ''employed''. Those all denote very active matters, not things into which an individual out with their dog could slip. In terms of black letter law, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, I think that the courts would interpret those in that way.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman may again be perfectly right, but I want to hear it from the mouth of the Minister. Concerns are aroused by Bills such as this, and their drafting. The people who want to see
 hunting controlled or abolished want to confine it in a particular way. Unless the Bill's wording reflects that, it will lead to results that are unsatisfactory from our point of view and from that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Rob Marris: I quite agree that we do not want an Act of Parliament to have unintended consequences. That is why I am inviting the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I think that it would have unintended consequences.

Alun Michael: I want to respond simply to an amendment that was introduced with a rather convoluted argument. The simple fact is that the amendment is unnecessary. Hunting is an intentional activity. A person must intend a dog to pursue a wild mammal. They cannot hunt accidentally or unintentionally. That is implicit in the ordinary English meaning of the word ''hunting'', and does not need to be made explicit in the Bill.
 It follows that if an old lady takes her dog to the park for exercise and, while they are there, the dog chases a squirrel, she will not be guilty of an offence under the Bill because she was not hunting. 
 She did not intend the dog to chase the squirrel. I am happy to confirm that walking dogs remains a legitimate activity and that the person responsible for the dogs does not need further protection under the Bill. An offence would only be committed when the individual was hunting. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire seemed not to understand the distinction, which is absolutely clear, between what a dog does when it is hunting and what a human being does. The Bill deals with the behaviour of human beings. He claimed that I had said that the Bill catches intentional hunting. I said no such thing because it would be tautological to refer to intentional hunting. Hunting is an intentional activity; there is no need to qualify the term. There is no doubt about the activity that is caught by the Bill. People walking their dogs in the way in which he described are not caught by the Bill. I am pleased to offer the assurance that he was seeking.

Edward Garnier: I was delighted to hear from the Minister that hunting will require intention. I was also delighted to hear his remarks on the use of words such as ''engage'', ''participate'' and ''employ''. There can be no doubt what the Bill is intended to do. As he said candidly a moment ago, the Bill is designed to deal with human activity and not with the activity of dogs.
 It is worth commenting that it is not only human beings who may be punished because a dog may lose its life too. A dog could be destroyed under the Bill for having taken part in hunting. I know that we used to hang dogs in mediaeval times for killing livestock and interfering with human beings, but I thought that we had moved on a bit from then. If we are to criminalise human beings, we should not criminalise dogs for behaving in a natural way by chasing wild animals. When the appropriate time comes, I hope that the Minister will either correct me and tell me that a dog cannot be destroyed under the Bill or that he will consider adjusting the way in which the penalties should be meted out to those who are guilty of hunting 
 so that innocent dogs are not dispatched, albeit that their owners or those who control them may be liable under law. 
 I want to draw one further point to the Minister's attention. In addressing the issue of dog walkers, will he explain precisely what is intended by clause 45(2)(b), which states: 
''one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction)''?
 If he can explain that provision, I may be able further to help the Committee.

George Stevenson: Order. I am not sure whether the Minister wants to do that. The amendment is specifically about walking and exercising a dog. He has answered the point clearly.

Edward Garnier: Your powers of understanding are greater than mine, Mr. Stevenson. That may not be a matter of congratulation because perhaps my powers of understanding are not huge. Since the Minister has made it clear that dog walkers will not be caught by the definition of hunting under clause 45(2), it would be a pity not to take the opportunity to explain what the bit in brackets is intended to do. If he is not prepared to do so, we shall have to make a note and come back on another occasion to seek to deal with the matter.

George Stevenson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has concluded his remarks, I will call the Minister.

Edward Garnier: That would be kind.

Alun Michael: I have tried to be absolutely clear and precise about what the Bill does. It is not necessary to add the words in the amendment, because walkers are not caught by the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks questions to draw me further, but I honestly feel that I might complicate a simple response to a straightforward amendment. I should like the public to understand that walkers are not caught by the legislation, and the measure should be self-contained, clear and without confusion.

George Stevenson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman seeking leave to withdraw the amendment?

Edward Garnier: I may in a moment. I have heard what the Minister said. We may have an opportunity when we come to clause 45 to return to the subject, assuming that there is an amendment that is relevant or that we are permitted a stand part debate. As further discussion on the amendment would be sterile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Adrian Flook: I beg to move amendment No. 351, in schedule 1, page 23, line 30, at end add—
'Exempt hunting of deer 
 8(1) Stalking a deer, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied; and the provisions of paragraph 1 shall not apply in the case of deer. 
 (2) The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken in an area which has been certified by the Secretary of State as being an area where deer hunting has traditionally been practised (a ''deer management area''). 
 (3) The second condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken in accordance with a deer management scheme prepared by owners and occupiers of agricultural and forestry land and 
owners of shooting rights on such land (in this paragraph referred to as ''owners'') and by other bodies or people in that area concerned in the management of deer herds (''the managers'') and registered with and approved by the Secretary of State, for the following purposes— 
 (a) the prevention or reduction of serious damage which deer would, in the opinion of the managers, otherwise cause— 
 (i) to livestock, 
 (ii) to game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)), 
 (iii) to food for livestock, 
 (iv) to crops (including vegetables and fruit), 
 (v) to growing timber, 
 (vi) to other property, or 
 (vii) to the biological diversity of an area (within the meaning of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992); or 
 (b) the culling of deer by shooting in order to maintain the size of the deer herds in such number as would, in the opinion of the managers, be conducive to the good health and well-being of those deer; or 
 (c) the removal of dead animals or the killing of sick or injured animals, or 
 (d) the stalking of flushing of one or more deer out of cover, or the moving of deer from one part of a deer management area to another, in order to minimise over-concentration of deer that might lead to excessive inter-breeding or be damaging to the health or well-being of herds of deer in other ways. 
 (4) The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out takes place on land— 
 (a) which belongs to the person doing the stalking or flushing out, or 
 (b) which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the owner or the managers of a deer management scheme. 
 (5) The fourth condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than six dogs and that on no occasion are dogs used for hunting for sport. 
 (6) The fifth condition is that for the purposes set out in sub-paragraphs (3)(a) and (b) above, but only for those purposes, reasonable steps are taken by the managers to ensure that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the deer may, if this appears desirable for the health and well-being of the herd, be shot dead by a competent person: 
 Provided that such shooting does not detract from the purpose set out in sub-sub-paragraph (3)(b) above. 
 (7) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with those concerned— 
 (a) make regulations for the registration of deer management schemes; 
 (b) provide for the periodic review of a deer management scheme; and, 
 (c) if in his opinion a deer management scheme is not operating as an effective method of managing and conserving the deer herds in the deer management area concerned, revoke his approval of that scheme. 
 (8) The Secretary of State make payments to the managers of a deer management scheme to cover the expenses of managing and operating that scheme. 
 (9) The hunting of deer in any area certified under sub-paragraph (2) above as a deer management area shall be exempt under this Act until one month after the Secretary of State has approved a deer management scheme in that area under sub-paragraph (3) above so as to give exemption in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph: 
 Provided that if no such approval has been given within six months after the coming into force of this Part of this Act in respect of an area certified by the Secretary of State to be a deer 
management area, the hunting of deer in that area shall then cease to be exempt.'.
 The amendment would offer a comprehensive provision to exempt deer hunting under schedule 1. I am grateful for all the hard work that the Exmoor Society has done in helping with the wording of the amendment. 
 The amendment is important because there will be problems on Exmoor if there is a ban on stag and deer hunting, which is what the Bill seeks. The British Deer Society is concerned about the potential plight of deer on Exmoor, and its opinion has been echoed by Martin Capstick, the head of the European wildlife division of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The view of the Exmoor national park authority is on record: 
''No agreed alternative model to the current management regime yet exists for an appropriate mechanism for deer management that will maintain current numbers, quality and visibility of wild red deer on Exmoor . . . It could put the ENPA's own statutory purposes and duties at risk.''
 The experts are concerned. Therefore, the Government must explain what they plan to do if stag hunting is banned. The amendment seeks such information. 
 The current perception on Exmoor, a large part of which is in my constituency, is that the deer belong to everyone. They are a communal resource and beyond financial value. Hunting is a vital part of the management process, and there is every indication that the strong deer herds on Exmoor—and on the Quantocks, as well—exist because of it. 
 I spoke to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, outside this Room, between one of the votes. He said that he would like to learn more about deer management because he does not know much about it. I appreciate that it is late in the day, but a very quick lesson in the current practices of deer management may be helpful. 
 We must accept that deer hunting allows a strong deer herd on Exmoor. In 1780, stag and deer hunting ceased on Dartmoor, Exmoor and the Quantocks. It started again on Exmoor in 1855, and the deer herd has become extremely strong. Hunting was not restarted on Dartmoor and, as a consequence, there are few deer there. 
 How does hunting lead to a strong herd? First, the farmers are given a say in the management of the herd through their hunt committee. Secondly, the deer continue to be controlled through hunting, which the community believes is a humane method; Government Members may disagree with that. Thirdly, when a deer is taken, the venison is divided between the hunting and the non-hunting farmers, who all suffer in some way from damage from deer, which are considered pests. Fourthly, there is payment and compensation for deer damage and assistance with deer fencing in special cases. 
 That is what deer hunting gives to deer management on Exmoor. If hunting is banned, it is estimated that the total deer herd will reduce by about 10 per cent. a year, until fewer than half of the deer currently on Exmoor exist; down to between 1,000 and 
 1,400. That is because shooting will become the main way of continuing to hunt deer. It is more commonly known in Scotland as stalking, but it will not happen on Exmoor in quite the same way as in Scotland. It will drive the deer to be very scared of humans. At the moment, one can often pass over Withypool common or Molland common and see large deer herds. If people start shooting deer—because they are pests—the deer will become not only scared of humans, but nocturnal. They will not therefore be the attraction that they are now on the whole of Exmoor. That will have a knock-on social and economic impact on Exmoor and its tourist industry. 
 There is much concern on Exmoor from those who hunt and those who carry out business, whether they work in tourism, as farriers or in other industries connected with the deer hunts. If hunting is banned—this is the crucial reason to pass the amendment—the cull will start well before the ban. It is imperative to amend the schedule as we have proposed because we on Exmoor need to know the Government's plans for the deer herd. If hunting, which currently manages deer, is banned, we need to replace it with another deer management system. 
 The Minister is well aware of my concerns and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). The three of us met local representatives immediately after the Minister announced his intention to ban deer hunting. That meeting, in the Minister's offices, examined two aspects that greatly worry local people on Exmoor. The first was the social and economic impact of banning hunting and what the Government could and should do about that. I shall not address that now, because we will discuss it under clause 6 stand part. 
 The second important aspect was the deer management scheme that will be needed to safeguard the Exmoor deer. When I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, the hon. Member for North Devon and my constituents to see the Minister, we rather hoped that he, having thought through the measure to ban stag hunting—or deer hunting, as it is in the Bill—would have realised that something needed to be done and put a scheme in place so that those people knew what the Government intended to do if the Bill went through and hunting were banned. They were sadly disappointed that the ball was put back into their court. 
 Admittedly, those representatives—in particular West Somerset district council and Exmoor national park authority—have certain information at their disposal; but so does DEFRA. It knows much about agriculture and management on Exmoor, but there is nothing in the Bill to succour us or make us less concerned that banning hunting will lead to the destruction of the deer.

Nicholas Soames: I cannot share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for DEFRA's expertise in the management of wild deer. What does he believe that expertise to be?

Adrian Flook: The deer are managed by the hunting fraternity, but there are also deer societies, and there is some element of crossover of information between
 those societies and DEFRA. As I have said, Martin Capstick, the EU wildlife director for DEFRA, knows that the management of Exmoor deer is carried out by the hunt and is concerned that there will be a problem if the hunt disappears. We wanted to hear from the Minister of any progress yet made in DEFRA on what it would use to replace hunting when that was banned. We were sadly disappointed that the ball was put straight back into our court.
 Time may not wait. As I have said, rumours abound locally that many landowners will not tolerate the deer coming on to their land. If they know that hunting will be banned and they will not be able to get the benefits—as they see them—of it, they will dispatch those deer before an alternative plan can be brought into existence.

Hugo Swire: Surely some of those landowners or farmers will dispatch the deer, which are a valuable commodity, rather than allow them to wander on to the land of a neighbouring farmer, who will then have the benefit of shooting and disposing of them. That might be a quick way of disposing of the entire deer herd.

Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are instances, although I would rather discuss them under clause 6 stand part, of deer being taking out because they walked on to the land of an anti-hunting farmer, who shot them because he did not approve of the hunt. That is a good example of how deer are being dispatched because someone does not like hunting, although there are currently 500–600 compliant landowners who approve of hunting.
 A management system must include controls over shooting to protect crops and farming interests. That is in the amendment. It must include a deer cull to maintain the size of the herd at the level required for their well-being. Management must ensure that deer are moved from one area to another to minimise concentrations that might damage the herd. As we have already heard in our discussions, too many deer in one area—such as Baronsdown, run by the League Against Cruel Sports—can damage local farming. Deer management is necessary to carry out the other functions of the hunt such as the disposal of sick, wounded or dead animals. 
 The amendment suggests that such a deer management scheme would be best undertaken on a voluntary basis by the local Exmoor people, especially the farming community, which has the skills and experience of the hunts. Although the scheme would be voluntary, the amendment would give it the statutory framework necessary to establish a body to devise and manage such a scheme. The amendment would allow landowners and farmers on Exmoor and other areas where deer are hunted to agree such a scheme for managing deer herds among themselves for the purposes given in the amendment. It would allow the use of a limited number of dogs—I have suggested six—authorised for those purposes. 
 For such a scheme to be effective, it would have to have statutory backing and be registered with and approved by the Minister. The details and day-to-day management and operation of the scheme would be 
 completely under the control of local landowners and farmers, who would work together voluntarily. However, as an important check on that, the Minister would have the power to revoke the scheme if it did not appear to be working properly, to conserve the deer herds. That is the important aim of any management scheme. The Government might also be able to make payments to cover the costs of such a scheme. At the moment, management is carried out, in effect, for free by those who seek recreation in hunting and, in so doing, fund the management of the Exmoor deer herd. 
 The stick to go with the carrot would be that, although pending the introduction of a voluntary deer management scheme, deer hunting would continue as at present in the areas concerned. If a scheme were not agreed and approved after an adequate time, all deer hunting except as exempted in schedule 1 would be banned. That would be a suitable stick to go with the carrot of allowing a deer management scheme to continue. 
 There is real concern on Exmoor about the future of our herd. Mark my words; take away hunting and that herd will disappear. That is exactly what happened on Dartmoor a couple of centuries ago. Deer are a pest. They can eat the equivalent of three sheep and there can be 100 deer in a field. A couple of Saturdays ago, I saw 70 or 80 deer moving together. Despite the fact that there was a hunt and a foxhound hunt within half a mile, the deer were moving together and were oblivious of the hunts. The deer are not scared of large numbers of human beings wandering around Exmoor. If indiscriminate shooting is allowed, there will be fewer deer. The deer belong to all of us on Exmoor; they belong to everyone who is allowed to go to Exmoor, which is all of us. Hunting is a vital part of that process.

Rob Marris: I note from the Burns report—page 98, paragraph 5.75—that it
''is generally accepted that red deer numbers in Devon and Somerset need to be controlled. Hunting with dogs presently accounts for about 15 per cent. of the annual cull needed to maintain the population at its present level.''
 Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what happens about the other 85 per cent., which is the overwhelming majority?

Adrian Flook: May I answer that at length in relation to clause 6, Mr. Stevenson?

George Stevenson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance. I have been checking clause 6 and it would be easy for him to wander on to that subject. As yet, he has been very disciplined and has not done so, for which I am extremely grateful.

Adrian Flook: I am very aware of clause 6 and when we come to the stand part debate, I am sure that there will be a barrage of information. I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will leave this evening a little more knowledgeable about deer management schemes and the need for them. After Tuesday—I hope that we will get to the matter then—
 he will also know a lot more about deer and why hunting needs to continue on Exmoor.
 I conclude by emphasising why the amendment to schedule 1 should be agreed. Hunting is very much the glue that binds the community on Exmoor together and that means that the deer are looked after. If there is no hunting, a large number of owners will see the deer as a roving cash crop and they will be a source of possible funds for indiscriminate opportunists. I should like to know whether the Minister has had further discussions with his officials about how best to protect the deer. Otherwise, I believe that the amendment should be agreed.

Alun Michael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) on the way in which he introduced his amendment and, to echo your words, Mr. Stevenson, the way in which he stayed in order. I shall also concentrate on the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. I agree that a deer management scheme is necessary, but—I think that he acknowledged that I had expressed this view—legislation is not needed in order to have an effective deer management scheme in place.
 I will come to some of the detail in a moment, but I want to underline that agreement and co-operation are necessary. The hon. Gentleman will know of my willingness to work with those who are concerned with the future health of the deer herd on Exmoor and the Quantocks. He referred to a meeting at which we discussed the issue and in which I described the way I approached the matter, so he will be aware that I spent time listening to organisations and individuals in the Exmoor area before reaching my conclusions. I was aware of the strength of feeling; I wanted to understand it and how it relates to the available evidence, which we will refer to when we come to clause 6. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that no encouragement whatever should be given to farmers, land managers or anybody else to act in a cavalier manner in the event of legislation coming into force. We do not want anyone to act in a way that would almost give people legitimacy in blasting off at the deer in the Exmoor area. I do not think that he offered any such encouragement. 
Mr. Flook indicated assent.

Alun Michael: I can see that he concurs. He described what he believed to be a danger and I understand the belief that that danger might come to pass. It has been expressed to me by a variety of people, but I do not think that it is justified. We should do all we can to encourage people to recognise the impact of the legislation, and the need for close co-operative working to ensure the future well-being of the herd.
 Given the strength of view on both sides of the argument, I recognise that that will not be easy. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am committed to do what I can by working with people who may have different views on the issue. There may be a degree of antagonism; nevertheless, I am willing to do what I 
 can to bring about a co-operative approach following the enactment of the legislation. 
 The amendment proposes that the regulatory regime should cover deer hunting, and would permit stalking and flushing only in areas that the Secretary of State decided should be designated as deer management areas. The hon. Gentleman has made a serious attempt to tackle the perceived consequences of a ban on deer hunting. I would go further and say that I welcome the fact that people are trying to engage with the anticipated outcome of the Bill's enactment, even though—and I know the hon. Gentleman's position—they do not support the approach that I have adopted in the Bill. 
 The amendment provides for a total exemption from the provisions—including clause 6—for deer hunting in those areas certified by the Secretary of State where deer hunting is traditionally practised, until one month after the Secretary of State has approved a deer management scheme in that area, or no longer than six months after the coming into force of the relevant part of the legislation. The amendment is predicated on two policies; first, a transitional period should the Bill be passed, and secondly, the detailed involvement of the Secretary of State in a deer management scheme, including possible funding. 
 The Hunting Bill was published on 3 December 2002. Clause 6 prohibits the hunting with dogs of deer of any species except in accordance with the exemptions for stalking and flushing out, and recapture and rescue of a wild mammal. I have repeatedly made clear that clause 6 is included in the Bill because of the evidence showing that the chase will always cause unnecessary suffering. The same purpose can always be achieved by stalking and flushing out with one or two dogs. Therefore, I expect those affected by the provision banning deer hunting to consider how to deal with the effects of the law's implementation, and not to seek a further period of adjustment. 
 Several conditions would have to be satisfied in order for hunting to be exempt under a management scheme. I do not propose to go through all of them individually, but I have concerns about some in particular. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to go through them further, I should be happy to do so. For example, the fifth condition about the number of dogs has been the subject of earlier debates on where the line is drawn. I have listened with care to the argument for six dogs set out by the hon. Gentleman. I am not convinced that the case has been made that that number of dogs is required for stalking and flushing out, or that stalking and flushing out cannot be properly achieved by the use of two dogs, which is the condition in the Bill.

Adrian Flook: Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, I suggest that because some of the points are technical, he may wish to write to me in response to my concerns rather than addressing just one of them. On the number of dogs, I gave six as a figure because several people interested in hunting believe it to be the minimum number one would need to flush out deer on the terrain in Exmoor. I would be interested—as
 would those from the Exmoor society—to receive written responses to those points from the Ministry.

Alun Michael: It would be churlish of me not to agree to that request; I happily do so. I should mention that there are other aspects of the amendment that concern me, such as the provision permitting deer hunting for the purpose of culling for population control. I am not convinced that a case has been made for that purpose. In view of the hon. Gentleman's invitation, to which I shall respond as quickly as possible, I will not go into further details when responding to the amendment.
 I emphasise that I fully agree that deer management schemes are an important—indeed, crucial—tool for developing strategies for handling deer at local level, particularly when there may be concern about numbers. I also emphasise that DEFRA will play its part in facilitating such initiatives, but they must be local initiatives with expert support as necessary. I understand why the hon. Gentleman asked what DEFRA will do. The Department, and I as Minister, will respond to the willingness of local people to develop appropriate methods for deer management. We are willing to do that irrespective of the legislation, but it will become all the more important because of opinion in local areas in the light of the impact of legislation. 
 I cannot accept the amendment, but I accept the intentions of the hon. Gentleman and I applaud his efforts to respond in a reasoned way on the future health and survival of the deer herd and the interests of his constituency.

Edward Garnier: The Minister said that he would write to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. Will he ensure that all Committee members are supplied with a copy of that letter?

Alun Michael: Indeed. I suspect that there may be further exchanges that are specific to the hon. Member for Taunton and I am not offering to expose all conversations and correspondence exchanged with individual Members. However, I shall happily circulate a summary of the situation as I see it.

Nicholas Soames: Given the Minister's emollient courtesy and as deer hunting is infinitely the best way of dealing with such matters, would not it be better if he withdrew the provision and let the matter rest?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman wandered back into the Room after we had taken a self-denying ordinance not to stray into clause 6. The reasoned way in which the hon. Member for Taunton sought to represent the interests of his constituents is a model for us all and a Minister responds responsibly to such an approach.

Adrian Flook: I thank the Minister, but he did not answer the main thrust of my argument. He made an announcement and we had a meeting at the beginning of December about the need to seek protection for the management of deer. I was trying to find out how far his Department has progressed with the issue. Unfortunately, he has given me no succour to believe that he has thought it through any further. I am not
 giving away any confidences from that meeting, but we all appreciate that time is short this evening. Some people on Exmoor intend—encouraged or not, but mostly not—to take out the deer herd rather than having it destroy their crops if they are not allowed to hunt deer. I have been given some encouragement that the Minister's letter to me will give some understanding of what sort of deer management scheme—

Nicholas Soames: Dream on.

Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex says from a sedentary position that we are dreaming, but I hope not.

Alun Michael: I urge the hon. Gentleman not be tempted down the path that his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex would like him to take. He
 will recall that, during the discussions, I said that the point at which further consideration and discussion of what might be done should be informed by the views of local representatives. I stand ready to discuss with him the timing of such further discussions.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. On the basis that he will write to me and respond to the points that some local people have made for the amendment, I shall withdraw it, but I await an early response to the points made in the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Six o'clock till Tuesday 11 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.